Scholar

No. What-Isness Consciousness = What-Isness Materialism = What-Isness Both the idealist and the realist confuse ideas with What-Isness. You idea of consciousness has a huge load of crap attached to it, much like the idea of materialism has a huge load of crap attached to it. However, both of them are What-Isness. My entire point is that you "Idealist"/"consciousness" framework is just as valid as the "realist"/"materialist" framework. This is what you cannot see, because you have attached you notions of consciousness to whatisness. You still believe in subjectivity, in experience, in consciousness. But these notions are as misguided as the materialists notions. What is is simply what is, they are not consciousness nor material. However both consciousness and material are the same, Whatisness. Stop assuming that I am ignorant and consider for a second that you might be missing something here. You idea of consciousness is not What-Isness. The idealist is just as "wrong" as the realist when he is not enlightened. Idealism and Realism are just two ways of looking at that which is. But both the idealism and the realism are PART of Whatisness, they are not above it. The realist, even prior to enlightenment, cannot point to anything but Whatisness. EVERYTHING that can be possibly pointed to IS and MUST BE whatisness. There is no exception. The realist, whether he is conscious of it or not, cannot talk about anything beyond whatisness. Therefore the realist is pointing to Whatisness. His description of the material is pointing to a SPECIFIC aspect of whatisness. This is fucking mindblowing, it's literally magic. The unconsciousness is WHATISNESS, it cannot escape it. This is the genius of the magic that his happening. The materialist cannot point to anything but whatisness. And yes, the materialist is pointing to something very important. If you go truly Meta on this, you will realize that the materialist has literally created and altered reality, he has literally created truth. It's fucking insane. Just that it's not the materialist that is making the magic happen, because he is part of the magic. If you believe the materialist can believe that there is something other than consciousness, than your notion of consciousness cannot be whatisness, meaning that whatever notion of idealism connected to consciousness you believe in is necessarily delusional. Consciousness is everything, even the concept of "outsidedness" is consciousness. And the concept of outsidedness actually exist! It is so important and fundamental that we would not be having this conversation if it wasn't there. It's just as real as anything else you believe in, literally. Just consider that I am pointing to something profound here. Reflect on the "You cannot point at something beyond consciousness", and reflect upon what the materialist actually means when he talks of consciousness. Also do the same to your notion of consciousness. I am telling you, there are minds to be blown, it will be wonderful. We are not arguing semantics, I am pointing to something that will blow your mind if you see it, I promise you. Again, if you believe someone can believe something being "beyond" consciousness, then your notion of consciousness has nothing to do with Whatisness. You need to reflect on that, I promise that if you do, you will see what the realist is doing. It is fucking magic, literally.

The problem with calling it idealism is obviously that you seem to put some validity into that framework, as if it was revealed as truth after Enlightenment. What you call Idealism, you might as well call Realism. Why name it idealism?

I don't think what you are doing here is fair. You are reframing what we are talking about. This conversation was specifically about the frameworks of Idealism vs Realism and which is more rational to adopt. I don't believe any of the two can be more rational to adopt, because they cannot be grounded. It is faith in either case. And in the case of enlightenment, both of these frameworks become the same, they become descriptors of the absolute. From that perspective the realist is failing to recognize that when he talks about material, he cannot talk about anything but consciousness, because consciousness is being itself. The realist cannot be anything but an idealist, that is essentially all there is. This reframing is important because realism is actually amazing. At that point realism and idealism are just two ways of looking at the same thing. However that still has nothing to do with the original conversation. You can't just take idealism to mean enlightenment, how is that fair?

When I say that you do orange or green things, I don't mean that you are orange or green, but that you are using these aspects of the spiral. I don't care what stage you or me are at, all I care is about what was being said. I think absolutistic relativism is a problem that a lot of people on this forum have, where everything becomes relative and they basically just use that to justify their positions or undermine the positions of others. I don't care whether they are blue, turquoise, yellow or red. There is a balance to be found between acceptance and passion, and while it is preferable to embody both, I don't think that we can go around and give that advice to people who simply are not at the stage to be able to do so. I do think your perspective is valuable, I just feel like we shouldn't take it so absolutistic. In the end, whatever will help progress is where we need to be.

First: It is not nitpicking. If you cease to create a framework, you will recognize that Idealism and Realism are the same from the perspective of What-Isness. They are both basically descriptors and aspects of whatisness. They are, in essence, themselves two dimensions of Whatisness. In my opinion your prefence of Idealism over Realism is due to a fundamentally ignorance of what Realism, from the perspective of higher consciousness, truly is. I would recommend some of Ken Wilbers work and his 4 quadrant models. Grasping it might help you understand what I am doing here. I refuse the notion of experience and subjects. I know very well what these words are marking, but that has nothing to do with the validity of Idealism vs Realism. In the "eyes" of Isness, they are both the same, literally. Second: I don't think anyone who believes in materialism will find the argument of using OC to establish the existential nature of existence convincing. I don't see how that is rational. Please don't move the goal-post of this topic, it was specifically about Idealism being the more rational position to assume, not which position is in the end true or not. Third and Forth: I don't know what to respond to, I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't believe in necessary truths of any kind, because the source is irreducable. I am not here to defend realism, but to show that neither idealism nor realism contain Truth, but that they both are part of Truth and that both have useful applications. Don't forget that realism is not merely a mental framework that people came up with, it is literally the way reality is perceived by humans. You cannot escape it by just adopting idealism. If you do escape it, the impossiblity of realism will blow your mind. It literally is magic, and it is happening right now, despite you creating fancy frameworks to deny it. @Consilience Alright, if you do not want to engage with what I am saying then I guess we can leave it at that.

Read the what I responded to the other guy. I am not an epistemic realist nor an idealist, to me both positions are essentially ungrounded and in the deepest sense non-sensical. You are viewing idealism from a materialistic lense, as you have a notion of experience, which in itself contains a seperation between What is and Subjectivity. You are attributing to What Is some sort of Experiential Nature, which is unfounded. If you let go of this distinction however, both the notion of idealism and realism become two aspects of What Isness. They will both become equally redundant. A Realist simply can make a distinction between the contradictions and groundless axioms in the most existential realms, and claim that these contradictions only occur there. Sure it's groundless to assume that, but it is just as groundless as assuming anything else. This is the very problem with your Idealism framework, you refuse to admit that you have created a framework that is just as unjustified.

Firsty, the problem is that you are already framing it in a way that is unsubstantiated. You already claim that "What is" is experience, not "world". Why is "What is" not direct world? Where does the whole experience framework come from, how is it evident that anything is experience? It is what is there, how come you are able to make claims about what that which is there is? Secondly, why is occam's razor relevant in this? Why is it a good tool for establishing the existential nature of reality? Occam's Razor, after all, is a rule that was established from empirical data based on a materialistic framework of reality. We are operating far prior to that, far before we can even get to establish whether occam's razor is a valid way of establishing truth. After all, occam's razor is not some sort of divine rule, it is simply a principle that seems to be useful in investigating the likelihood of something to be true or not. We are talking about something that goes far prior to the phenomena of the world in which this principle was established in. If we go by this standard, then ultimate solipsism is what you should believe in, completely devoid of any framework whatsoever. After all, by claiming that there is direct experience rather than simply what is, you are adding parts to your theory. How do you substantiate that there is such a thing as science or materialists if by OC it is more likely that it is all simply what is, a groundless dream? And how do you substantiate the existence of OC, when once it is out of direct experience it cease to exist, because after all there is nothing outside of direct experience? Just not thinking about OC means it doesn't exist, therefore it could not possibly be a principle to follow. Infact, any principle you will establish will only exist and be valid as long as it is an object in experience, as it could not exist anywhere outside of it. How do you get passed these issues?

I know the video abrakamowse, but I think it is far from an indepth philosophical analysis of naive-realism. If you were to show this to a philosopher who does not reject Naive Realism it will hardly convince them of the opposite.

You have been posting your critique not under some militant vegan post, but in a thread where we had a very civil discussion about veganism and it's effects on the environment specifically. I don't see that as very helpful, and I do view it as a knee-jerk reaction. Again, stage green excessive relativism can very very harmful and that is what I see in the way you are communicating your message, especially because you are doing so in an environment which was the opposite of vegan "extremism". The loving, accepting and understanding "non-vegans" is an approach that is effective but limited. Again, to me this is the stage green "trying too hard to find consensus" pitfall. There are many, many people who the "loving and accepting" approach does not work at all, infact they will ridicule you for it. Look at examples like Vegan Gains who had a huge impact on getting stage orange people into veganism with his very offensive and quite militant approach. Sure it will not convince everyone, but it will convince a very specific type of person who will certainly not be convinced by some lovey-dovey approach. Don't forget that stage orange will ridicule stage green no matter what. The more "loving and accepting" you get the more like a foreign entity you will feel to them. A huge thing about getting to a new stage in spiral dynamics is that it requires relatability to the new ideas. A person who is between stage orange and green will have a much easier time to convince stage orange people of veganism than some stage turquoise monk who accepts and loves everyone. They don't vibe with each other, their energies are far too apart from each other. This is why someone like Joey Carbstrong can get really good results with prisoners and criminals, because he himself was part of that. If he transformed into a stage green hippie, he wouldn't be able to relate to these people at all. Again, in my view you are showing signs of stage green pitfalls, not of systemic stage yellow understanding. What do you understand to be a militant vegan? Do you have examples? Is it really a big problem in the vegan movement? What if you are biased in the way you view and accept progress? Maybe you simply dislike the different approaches and because you are less familiar with them you do not see the effects they can have on convincing others? Don't forget that the "militancy" or the more radical views can have different effects than just convincing "non-vegans". It can also be a great tool to mobilize and create movements. But I urge you to once more reflect upon whether the "militant vegans" really are as big of a problem as you seem to be indicating, and whether or not most vegans will not agree with you anyways.

First we need to establish which axioms have to be taken on faith contrary to the position of idealism (or from a position that talks about directness of experience and so forth). Does idealism possibly require it's own axioms to be held? Where exactly is the contradiction between naive realism and the tools of rationality? Why is actual direct experience the most objective point of view, and how does it falsify naive realism?

Then why do you have a problem with Naive Realism?

What you are showing here is a stage orange, multiplistic point of view. Live and let live, freedom of choice, everyone should mind their own business, disguised as a stage yellow perspective which does not actually contain a lot of love. From a perspective of universal love, we will accept the ego-mechanisms in the vegan movement if they are necessary for a transition into a world of less suffering and less environmental destruction. We will accept cultural clashes because we recognize it is part of a natural evolution and transition into new cultural norms. Relativizing the perspectives to the degree you do does not create progress, it hinders progress. Identity and ego are needed and a vital part of cultural transitions. The world will not go from stage orange to universal love. What will be required is a universal identity, that identity will not allow the exploitation of animals as much as it does not allow the exploitation of human beings. Again, if you were truly consistent, you would have to accept that human beings are being murdered, that we should be accepting of the lifestyle of serial killers. You are not, you are using this stage yellow facade to justify a lifestyle which contributes to harm and suffering, which contributes to egoism and selfishness. Creating a strong identity towards animals is a step towards a universal identity, it is a required, it is something we need to build upon so one day we can truly let go of it. Stage yellow will recognize this, stage yellow will use the tools needed to help the world transition from orange to green without demonizing the perspective of stage green, which is what you are currently doing. The perspective of stage green is that it is wrong to kill animals for the reasons we currently do. From stage green, the exploitation of animals is not a personal choice, it is not a choice of lifestyle, just as much as human slavery is not simply a "point-of-view". Human slavery is discrimination, it is causing suffering, it is viewed as injustice. It is not merely viewed as another valid perspective to see the world. Without the strong ego attachment towards all of the human race, we would have never abolished slavery. We would have continued to keep black people in chains. What you are doing is the opposite of stage yellow. You are not accepting and loving towards the perspective of stage green. You are putting them down, you are viewing them as lower than your "universal love" perspective. You view your perspective as correct and more useful than theirs. "No vegans, you have to calm down, you have to be like me. You have to be accepting of meat eaters. You have be loving and patient." Yellow would see the value in the ego attachment of vegans towards animals. It would see that it is a necessary step towards the continuing abolishment of needless suffering and death. You would seek to encourage green, you would praise someone like Earthling Ed for his empathetic approach, instead of making statements about movements you seem to only know of by the presentation of stage orange critique of it. Vegans are in most cases are very empathic and understanding towards meat eaters, but due to our compassion towards animals we cannot value the perspective of the meat-eaters as much as the perspective of the animals. Our more universal compassion does not allow us to stand by and be satisfied with the status quo. Fundamentally, the meat eaters are directly undermining the perspective of other beings. They are directly contributing to suffering and death that can be avoided. I think your current position is more of the pitfall of excessive relativism of stage green than it is systemic stage yellow understanding. Veganism is growing rapidly, I think currently they are doing a very good job. By your understanding apartheid should have never been fought against because "Love and understand everyone". That is not how the world works, don't project your higher point of view onto others, especially when it might not even be a "higher" point of view.

Can you demonstrate how Occam's Razor is useful in this case, and how it leads us to assume Idealism to be more likely?

Why do you think believing in idealism is more rational than believing in naive realism?

He is not a vampire, he is just anti-science and is digging his own grave. The sad thing is that his daughter has convinced the entire family to go carnivore, and his mothers kidney cancer certainly did not benefit from a diet that is heavily burdening on the kidneys. Gojiman actually made a good response to the whole carnivore thing they are doing, and why they probably are struggling with eating vegetables: But Jordan Peterson and his daughter think they know better, they are spreading dangerous misinformation to thousands of people.

I-ness is a very specific thing. It is identification. It is a very specific form and dimension of reality. I is not all there is, "all there is" is "all there is". There can be something without anything that is "I". Nothing belongs to anything. All dimensions of reality are irreducable. Any mental framework is based on contradictions such as "X=Y". Notice how you are doing that, and how you are seeking to do so. You ask what something really is, where something really is coming from. All you really need to do is hold still and look at that which is. WYou still believe that "Coming from" is something else but a limited dimension of reality. Inspect "coming from-ness".

You still have a duality between perceiver and perception. You claim you are everything that is entering your perception. What you must do is inspect "I-ness" itself. What is the "I" that is clinging onto perceptions? Is "I" itself a perception? More importantly, what is the difference between realness and perception? Why are you still using the word perception? You have not inspected "Iness", "controlness" and "perceptionness". You are not everything that enters your perception, because "Youness" itself is a perception. The ego is a perception, not the other way around. Perceptions are not part of the ego. You want to go more fundmental, question the very basis of how you come to understand reality. Question the very fabric of how you perceive perception, how you alter it by putting it into categories. You have to zoom out more, and then you have to reflect on the zooming out itself. Realizing that the altering, that the perceivingness itself stands on it's own. There is no "I" other than another perception which can dissappear. What is the difference between Redness and Iness?

What does the occult think of sexual energy, how is it connected?

I don't like these kinds of arguments too much because they would mean that if it was logically possible to justify the animal holocaust it would follow that we could proceed to do so. I prefer to expand the Self-identity of others so that they have an internal motivation to protect the animals, an irreducable desire to share compassion with all beings. Not torturing an animal because it isn't logically consistent with ones beliefs is to me not a very good and stable reason. As soon as the self-identity is threatened, like when there might be health decline or social pressure, there will be a tendency for the ego to ignore consistency and opt for survival. My self-identity feels threatened when it sees animals being killed, that threat-perception it greater than the preference to avoid the challenges that come from being a vegan.

I have heard of him but haven't read any of his books. I know he made the argument from marginal cases popular: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_marginal_cases It basically states that there is no difference between animals and humans that would justify our treatment of them without justifying some form of it in the human context. Any difference we will find that we would apply to humans would make us look like psychopaths if then decided to take their right to life away. For example, someone mentally handicapped might be on the same level of intelligence and consciousness as any specific animal, if we were to take the difference in intelligence as justification to treat animals the way we treat them, we would have to accept the same for mentally handicapped people. This basically reveals a fundamental bias we have towards accepting arguments to kill other species but not accepting the same arguments when it is about our own species. The argument basically reveals that the only thing we truly care about, and why we truly care about human beings in the first place, is their capacity for sentience and suffering. After all, I can modify you in any way I want, as long as you are capable of experiencing suffering, you will not want to experience suffering. It's not like if I turn you into a cow you suddenly will be fine with someone killing you.

Any suggestions?

I have been experimenting with L-Theanine for some time now and it seems like it doesn't really work well for me. It makes me super spaced out, feeling empty but relaxed. I can't really visualize on it at all, it makes drawing for me really difficult. It's like there is nothing there, I feel really floaty. I have been combining it with coffee aswell and it doesn't really do much for my focus. Anyone here had similar effects? Might it be just a bad supplement or what? I can't really work this way so I will stop using it. It also makes it harder for me to fall asleep when I take it in the evening. I don't have this kind of feeling when I drink green or black tea.

This is not about shoulds and shouldnts. It is about desirable ways of functioning within reality. You can function however you want, I am simply showing you where your kind of thinking will lead to. If you don't like human slavery, you better change the way you are thinking, because your way of thinking can be used to justify human slavery. It isn't about absolute shoulds, it is about hypothetical imperatives. The way you justify your beliefs contradicts your own beliefs. It is undesirable for you, if you were to objectively inspect how you act and what you desire. Of course I am justifying my beliefs, everyone is. Again, it is not about the mere fact that I am justifying beliefs, it is about how we justify our beliefs. If you believe everyone can justify their beliefs however you want, then you for example wouldn't be referring me to Leo's video about shoulds and shouldnts. Just because you do not explicitely use these words does not mean you do not operate in a framework of shoulds and shouldnts. Shoulds and shouldnts go far beyond language. This is not about "Should there be human rights?", but about "Do we want there to be human rights?". I think if you stepped back and reflected upon what I am trying to say, you would find that there are ways of thinking that you belief to be undesirable. Ways of thinking that will lead to your own suffering and to the suffering of those you love. You will realize that the way you think, the way your mind operates, is unsustainable for you. How could you, after all, criticize someone to discriminate against black people when you yourself to do the same to beings you put into special categories? My impression is that you just haven't read a lot on this topic, and you also have not made yourself familiar with these basic philosophical principles. It's not about whether you should or shouldnt in an absolute sense, but whether you should or shouldnt if you want to reach a world that is more loving and "good", whatever you might view good to be. But you are right, at this point it is getting off topic, if you want we can continue this somewhere else.

I am not equating anything, I am creating comparisons. This is actually a very common misunderstanding found in moral philosophy, and it is usually done as a defense mechanism. I was not comparing human slavery to animal slavery, what I did was use the logic you use to justify animal slavery to illustrate how one could use the same logic, the same type of thinking, to justify human slavery. The point here is not that "human slavery is as bad as animal slavery", but that your thinking and the way you justify your beliefs is very obviously flawed if we were to use it in any other context. The inability to recognize the flawed nature of your thinking is the indicator for the bias you have towards a certain position. This is why it is very obvious to you how flawed these arguments are in a human context, but yet you accept the same type of logic in the animal context. The thing here is that this illustrates how human beings were able to create moral frameworks, or any ideology, by create a cognitive dissonance which allows them to continue operating with contradictory beliefs. This is not about a difference in valuing a certain type of being, this is about how your ego comes to construct it's positions and their justifications. This is where devilry is found. All I can tell you is the same ego-mechanisms which allow you to discriminate against animals is the exact same ego-mechanism that allowed slavers to keep black slaves and be fine with it. Again, it's not about positions, but about how we come to those positions.